Fujifilm X-T3 Review

When the Fujifilm X-T2 arrived, it was more than just a modest upgrade to the already impressive X-T1, most notably in terms of autofocus and video. While the new X-T3 hasn't changed the overall design of the camera it repeats the same trick: representing a significant step forward.

The X-T3 brings with it a brand new sensor, improved autofocus and video performance that makes it competitive with Panasonic's GH5, taking the X-T series from being a very good stills camera to one of the best stills/video hybrids on the market.

With its classic looks, attractive photos and superb video, it's the APS-C camera to beat.

Only 2 cameras worth buying $1500- 2000, this and Sony a73.... Check out Tony Northropes new video on color science.. beware Canon and Nikon scored horribly in a 1500 blind survey... Sony and Fuji were on top...

2402 comments in roughly 2 weeks. Is that a new record?Still owning some Nikon and Fuji lenses I seriously consider buying this for maturities sake.It's not the FF, ergonomics or lense lineup I'd want but Fuji fixed so many things that made my Fujis backups. Kudos to themI myself am getting real tired of waiting for a Zee6 or whatever.This might just work, too.

Looks great, but then so does my X-T2, so I'm a little underwhelmed and see nothing too exciting here that would make me want to upgrade. For my current needs, that is. I totally get that for some people the X-T3 may be exactly what they needed/were waiting for.

I don't know what to beat it with! Beating it doesn't seem appropriate or fair! Why does it deserve a beating? Why are they recommending us to try to beat it? It appears to be a fine camera! I mean, I'm just saying, not judging! Thanks!

Sure, from a tripod. OIS is 2 axis correction (pitch and yaw only), and it's mostly geared to low-amplitude correction such as mild hand tremor or camera movement due to pressing shutter button. IBIS is 5 degrees of freedom: pitch, yaw, roll, x translation and y translation, and it can correct much greater amplitude, up to mild telephoto.

All three reviews are being conducted in parallel, the other two are nearly ready. It probably shouldn't come as a surprise that the camera that shares most with its predecessor is the one that's easiest to review.

"These AF improvements make the X-T3 a much more flexible camera. Probably on a par with the Sony a6500 in most situations, but arguably easier to configure and use."Jesus Christ, a6500 is almost 3 years old already. What's going on Fuji?

The review lists the functions that can be assigned to buttons and screen swipes. Pointing out that there's no toggle option isn't an error. If your shooting isn't affected by needing to make multiple taps, that's great: feel free to ignore that particular 'Con.'

DPR certainly did lay some praise on this camera and I hope that purchasers of it enjoy it. But I found your comparisons of lens lineups to the Sony, Nikon and Panasonic to be seriously flawed. Fuji has some serious gaps in its lineup. Some that come to mind are:

No XX-300 zoomNo 70-200 2.8 zoomNo 17-70 zoomNo fisheye lensesNo superzoomsNo primes longer than 200mmNo lenses of any sort longer than 400mmOnly two macro lenses and they are in the very narrow range of 60 and 80mmOnly two stabilized primesOnly eight stabilized zoomsNo lenses from Sigma or Tamron and none are to be expected

Obviously, sports, action and wildlife photographers are impacted by the lack of long and fast lenses.

But other types of photography are impacted by the lens selection. The unparalleled small range of macro lenses is not good for that type photography.

People that want stabilized lenses will find Fuji's lineup limiting compared to Nikon's lineup or certainly any system with IBIS.

And the lens lineup for what they have is not very broad.When they complete their current roadmap in 2020 they will have nine lenses (nearly 30%) out of 31 are at 16mm/23mm/33(35)mm/56mm. Plus they have four in the kit zoom range and two zooms in the 5X-2XX range. Not a lot of variety at all there.

And some of their lenses are pricey. The prices for some of their lenses are pretty high. The respective review site OpticalLimits called the pricing on the 18-135 "bizarre" and I would also point out that you can buy 100mm macro for other APS-C systems for less money than you can buy the shorter 80mm macro lens for. The price of Fuji's kit 5X-2XX lens is also on the high side, especially considering its slow speed on the long end. And Sony and Nikon certainly have better prices on the nifty-fifty. I am sure there are other costs differences but these come to mind.

As I said, DPR does heap praise on the camera and I hope that users of it find it enjoyable.

But the limited lens selection and some of the pricing on lenses plus the feature set of other cameras certainly leads me to believe that for macro photographers, sports, wildlife, action, astrophotography and people with certain budgets might be better suited with other gear.

There are not as many lenses as the canon line up which has of course been developing for decades but at least Fuji now produces bodies that are worth putting the lenses onCan’t bear people who clearly have no idea throwing grenades over the fence. Try using the line up and then see how acutely you may (not) miss the breadth of Canon’s lens range. For the vast majority of indications there are more than enough lenses in their line upHow many lenses do you need to produce outstanding images ? I take about 95% of my images now on 3 lenses.

I know exactly what I am talking about. And I am clearly not talking about FF equivalence.

I talked about 60 and 80 mm macros not 90 and 120. If I were talking about FF equivalence I would have said 90 and 120.

Everything I talked about was clearly not FF equivalence.

So no, none of those lenses exist for Fuji. And yes, I do realize that some people use only a few lenses. Median income in the US is 61K. Most people can not afford the $15000 in photo gear you have and they get by with sometimes only the kit lens.

And I do take pictures. Take a look at my profile. I looked at your profile and in nearly 15 years you have not uploaded any to this website.

I upload elsewhere for my own use and audience. Most of it is wreck diving.To DPR ? Never. Because it is full of argumentative flogs like you who are here simply to try and appear clever. But then fail

But if it wasn’t on there I would have put that down as a separate category. I am pretty sure all the other APSC camera systems have access to a 17-70 and an 1x-8x. Theses types of lenses tend to be in different price and possibly weight categories, although the Canon 17-85 is really on sale right now!

In any case what about all the other gaps or the fact that they have few different focal lengths for the number of lenses they have. When they complete their current roadmap in 2020 they will have nine lenses (nearly 30%) out of 31 are at 16mm/23mm/33(35)mm/56mm. Plus they have four in the kit zoom range and two zooms in the 5X-2XX range. Not a lot of variety at all there.

"Obviously, sports, action and wildlife photographers are impacted by the lack of long and fast lenses."

Not me...the 80mm f/2.8, 50-140 f/2.8, 100-400 and 1.4TC have me covered. The big prime glass is overrated in shooting sports and wildlife. I see plenty of sports and wildlife being shot with the lenses I own above.

racin06: Thanks for replying honestly to the comment. But just because you use this gear does not mean there are not better choices for sports, action and wildlife. I have done okay (according to Challenge voters) with an action shot with a $300 camera and a $96 lens, but it doesn't mean that my gear is a good choice for action and sports, because it certainly isn't.

And you are certainly impacted by your choices in the following areas in various ways with you various legends.

SpeedReachConvenience (having to use a TC)CostImage Quality (when you use a TC because there is always a loss)Weight

So yes, you can do sports, action, wildlife with any camera and gear combo but it does not mean it is the best choice. I was at Yellowstone last year and it made it very clear to me what sort of gear is needed for the best work. And Fuji's very limited lineup makes that problematic and/or expensive.

As for other types of photography, Fuji's limited range of focal lengths for macro means there are better choices. Other cameras have feature sets for macro, landscape, still life, product and astrophotography that make them better choices.

Many portrait photographers like a 70-200 2.8 and Fuji doesn't have that. And the 200mm is a F2.0 and has a price that is typical for an OEM lens at that speed and makes it an unaffordable option for the overwhelming majority of users.

Fuji's limited selection of stabilized lenses also puts limitations on users that put an emphasis on those types of lenses.

continued;As mentioned in the review, Fuji is a jack of all trades and has good video. Certainly, I would think it would be a good street photography camera and that is one of the few areas where the lens lineup is good for that.

But for sports, wildlife, action, macro, landscape, still life, product, portraits, astrophotography and for people interested in a range of stabilized lenses there are better choices. Plus, some of Fuji's lineup (18-135, 80mm macro, the kit lenses, the 10-24, etc) are comparatively pricey. (Now you may not find them pricey but median US income is 61K a year and the overwhelming majority of people can not afford the thousands and thousands of dollars you spend on gear).

If you are street photographer, a videographer, have no particular area of photography you want to emphasize and you have the unusual amounts of money to afford some of the gear it is a great choice.

But the other category of photographers I detailed above should probably look elsewhere.

“unparalleled small range of macro lenses“...True, but the XF80mm f/2.8 Macro is arguably the best, SHARPEST macro lens on the market!! (As a landscape and product photographer, it’s the sharpest lens I’ve ever used in 40 years of photography! True 1:1 and weather sealed, who needs anything else??

Stevelink:Thanks for being honest in your comments. But as you said, it is ARGUABLY the best, sharpest. Other lens are pretty sharp. Opticallimits.com describes the Sigma 85mm Art "In terms of resolution it is amazingly sharp at f/1.4 already and the quality is breathtaking between f/2.8 and f/5.6." They describe the Pentax 50mm macro as "a marvel of a lens in optical terms" and it costs a small fraction of the price of the Fuji and weighs vastly less. There are other examples but these make my case that its sharpness isn't unique.

In any case, modern macro lenses are so sharp that only the most petty, persnickety pixel peeping would show a difference in many if not most applications.

Also, the price is high for the lens, see ephotozine's review.

And other lenses offer weather sealing and 1:1 at a lower price so Fuji is not offering anything unique here.

Sure it is a good macro lens but it is heavy and pricey with nothing that can't be obtained elsewhere.

Finally got a chance to handle and shoot with the X-T3 at PhotoPlus Expo yesterday. The analog controls are an enormous delight (aperture ring!), as is the overall lighter weight. What's not so great is the relatively shallow grip; it just didn't feel comfortable over the course of almost 30 minutes. That said, it's something that I could probably get used to.

Your comments about not being able to switch to face detection quickly is just plain wrong. Set the function button to select face detection. The screen dimming is a battery saving function that can be switched off and on. I think you should spend more time understanding the functions better.

The review doesn't say you can't get there fairly quickly, it says there's no way to toggle it (on and off).

Do you honestly think I sat with the camera, listing all the available options that could be assigned to Fn buttons and then forgot that you can assign function buttons?

Similarly, I'm completely aware that you can go into Boost mode if you're not worried about battery life but, having given the camera credit for its decent battery life (which is contingent on using the un-boosted mode), and the fact that I've encountered people who found the default behavior to be disconcerting, I felt it was worth mentioning.

A little touchy there Richard. I agree that it should not be listed as a ”con” without following clarification. I also find it somewhat misleading. Especially to those who may simply skip to the conclusion and score without reading the entire article. Great review btw!

i hope the xt200 will incorporate the same focusing system... I love the quality of cmos sensors, the affordability, and the fuji glass.... I do hope the camera gets more intuitive than what we had last years so that we can finally use these cameras to shoot weddings, if not I am willing to wait another year or 2 until the mirrorless matures.

There are plenty of wedding photographers using Fujifilm X Series cameras and other mirrorless cameras, as well. A simple search on Google is all that is needed. Your premise that mirrorless cameras aren't "mature" enough to shoot weddings is simply false.

Not sure why mirrorless should be the way to go for weddings. With existing gear, maybe look into more convenient holders? I use a Cotton Carrier harness, with 3 cameras connected to it. I don’t have the XT3. I do have the XT2 with 10-24 F/4, 23 F/1.4 and 56 F/1.2, but I won’t use it for weddings. I still prefer to use my Canon FF bodies with 35 F/1.4 and 70-200 F2.8, and a 70D with a 17-50 F/2.8. The DSLRs with centre point locks on fast in mixed and low lighting, and the DOF using FF just edges out any crop body. Sure, most people can’t tell or don’t even care but I can see a slight difference and I do care. I need to edge out just slight to keep getting new gigs. Helps pay for more Fuji gear, great for travel 😊

Greetings! I’m a landscape and product photographer, but I see little cause for concern for those contemplating wedding photography with the X-T3...AF speed with lenses like the stellar, sharp XF16-55 f/2.8, XF90mm f/2, or XF55-200 is pretty darn fast, silent, and accurate! And when combined with the excellent vertical grip with 2 extra batteries plus full shutter/Focus Point control, IMHO, makes an excellent wedding kit!

Love my Fuji X-T3 with the high res 3.6Mpx 0.75x viewfinder and color! I literally traded in a full frame camera with a huge 100mm macro lens for this. Don't miss the full frame camera at all. The Fuji X-T3 with 60mm macro is infinitely lighter and less bulky than the full frame setup. Easier to take hiking and don't need a huge expensive tripod to take the same macro shot with the full frame to prevent vibration.

One stop extra DR with full frame? Don't see any need in the photos I'm taking with the X-T3.

Hi John. Having had the Fuji XF60 Macro, and an X-Pro2, I agree that images are quite nice from that lens, if AF speed and 1:1 Macro are not important. However, switching to the X-T3 with the newer Fujinon XF80mm f/2.8 Macro, is an order of magnitude difference in terms of image Sharpness, detail rendition, and the ability to shoot true 1:1. The Sharpness I get with that kit, plus a high-quality stable tripod (such as the Leofoto LN254 CT carbon fiber), is absolutely incredible! IMHO, nothing comes close to the sharpness of the XF80 f/2.8 Macro!

Why didn't they make it in Japan? It would have cost slightly more, and any one who had wanted to purchase one would have. Fuji prides itself at showing off the "made in Japan" mark on its previous flagships, I wonder how tough a decision it was to move to China and what else from Fuji will be made in China.

What does it really matter? Your iPhone is not made in California? It’s just not relevant these days with high production standards set by the company and qc monitored. Would you rather pay a few hundred $$ more to have a Japanese factory worker assemble your camera or someone else which the same training and assembly process in another country with Lowe labor costs?

Alistar it would not be relevant if fujii itselfDid not make it relevant by being the onlyCameraCompany that proudly and in big letters wrote MADE IN JAPANOn the back of its cameras. Fuji did not haveTo doIt but they kept doing it. Canon rebelsAnd 5d are also made in Japan but they don’t makeABig dealOut ofIt, just listing it on the bottom in smallLetters. Fuji did makeA big deal out ofIt. That’s why the buzz whenFuji madeThe switch

@Alistair-h i don't own an iphone but my phone is made in China. "Made in ..." matters not for the quality of the final product but for what kind of world order you want (in few decades), what kind of country you give money to. Think 50yrs from now, not just over the lifecycle of current digital cameras. And in the case of Fuji, I couldn't put it any better than @Absolutic. If Fuji was a person, he would be a hypocrite. And yes, for equal spec'd camera but a bit higher price, if i had the choice I'd go for the Japanese worker assembled item. Fuji X-T3 very aggressive price is definitely not so low solely because it's made in China, fuji's profit margin on the X-T3 is likely quite thin. But I'm sure they have a solid business plan!

Greetings Orange, just FYI, the “Made in” (or, more accurately, “assembled “ in) China is a NON-Issue! Having used several “Made in Japan” Fuji bodies such as the X-T1 and X-Pro2, I see little difference in terms of build quality, and if anything, I find that the X-T3 is built BETTER than the aforementioned models! Admittedly, I too, had concerns about the build quality, BEFORE handling and using the camera. Thus, IMHO, this “issue” can and should be put to bed, as it does not reflect the true build quality of the camera.

Very nice camera overall but with very serious flaw... NO FF INSIDE. Sorry Fuji but If you want to become bigger and more serious, you can not run away constantly all the time. FF market is currently sweet spot in modern photo-video technology in terms of costs, portability and image quality. Face it with that. Secure yourself a place under the sun.

I know it’s a tired thing to say but deserves to be repeated. What makes a person an exceptional photographer is not their gears. It’s their vision and creativity. This is not by all means saying that gear doesn’t matter. Gears matter, but only when the vision and creativity of photographer demands it. So, what are you usually shooting? Why do you think you need a FF camera? Do you print your work for a billboard or poster? If all you do is sharing your photos on internet, then you never need a FF camera. If you can’t get a professional photo to publish on a website from a camera like the XT3, it’s more about you as a photographer than the camera it self.

Sensors come in all sorts of sizes and the idea that the old 35mm film size is somehow optimal in a very special way for digital also would be a big coincidence.Full frame is optimal for marketing in that it is full and other sensors are crop sensors but it results in massive expensive optics and you have to wonder who in this day and age really needs to lug all that stuff all around. Of course cost is not really a concept that many of those left posting in DPR really understand and probably means little to reviewers.You have to wonder with FF frame we are talking about the same brain cells activating that make it necessary for some to buy the largest SUV possible in some inner city to take the children on the 3 mile journey to school every day and put the lowest profile tyres possible on it to add to the comedy.Full frame may just a current retro fad that will disappear in the course of time. Nothing is certain in the camera world now.

Guys don't be so harsh. I am professional photographer and things there is very simple. Every pixel is counting, every skin pore, every detail in hair or eyelash. There is no APS-C sensor that can match FF in that regards. Also bokeh quality, light sensitivity, dynamic range becomes better with bigger sensors. That is not manufacturer ability to make something extraordinary - that is physics.

Fuji according to many other aspects promising very nice and capable system but for now it is only useful for mostly amateur photographers.

@KeepCalm look at any portrait taken with FF and APS-C and good lens of course. Anyone who can't see there significant difference in details need ophthalmologist more than any camera ;)

And YES... MF... of course. Too big, too AF sloppy and to expensive according to IQ difference.

@DuxXBut there are masses of full frame options around now so let us amateurs have a few aps-c systems to play with. Your post is very much geared to the elimination of one of the few aps-c systems available by saying it is a serious flaw.Currently with Nikon £2,700 is entry level in mirrorless so if it becomes the format of choice heaven help us casual camera users.

@KeepCalm it's perfectly okay for Fuji to have some offerings in APS-C class but like I already said I just want to see in close future some Fuji cameras in FF segment. My opinion is that big manufacturers have to offer all the options, rather than having their production based on classes where they do not have enough competition.

@Alistair-hAfter I had switched to FF back in 2009 I immediately realized that image quality has changed to something that pleased me soo much. I can't say APS-C IQ was wrong, but what was most strange for me all my FF lenses started to show better performance (better colours, image definition and corner2corner sharpness) than on APS-C before. I was (and still is) a fan of shallow dof when needed and with FF I can have it using simple and cheap 1.8 lenses.

@ Alistair: That's true. I used the Canon EF 50 1.8 STM on my 6d and on my EOS M5. On the 6D this lens is unbeatable for its price and a really fine lens. On the EOS M5 the results sometimes were quite nasty (heavy CAs e.g.).

@Paul JM That 28-70 offers unparalleled optical performance so extra weight is justified. Some people wants image quality more than smaller weight and Fuji management must understand that if they want to become tool for serious photographers not tourists, occasional street artist and hipsters. ...tjah...

Also EOS R is consumer camera, not professional. For 4 or 5 months that camera will cost like 6DmkII now. Fair price for that camera level I think. Soon will come better body with better specs and higher price and you Fuji guys will complain then about price and ergonomics ;)

Well, I’m one Fujifilm user who doesn’t believe any advantage of FF other than perhaps better low light/high ISO performance. As a landscape and product photographer using a tripod for all commercial work, I can obtain images with equal or better sharpness and detail rendition than FF...and especially so when employing focus stacking. As I only shoot at or near base ISO (160), I happily forego the extra weight and cost of a FF System. To each his own, I guess, right? Have fun with whatever gear you use.

Believe or not, if you look closely at any base iso portrait for example, difference is more than clear. APS-C simply can't match FF IQ. That's why Fuji need to have OPTION for their customers who wish to go on that way. You know... bigger sensor is no matter of manufacturer or personal preference. It's a mater of physics.

For me Fujifilm is The system that gives me the ergonomics and the features I need. There was a wave of people, including myself, starting to complain about Fuji lagging behind the competition and charging extra for the same stuff. Thanks to X-T3 and to the greedy CaNikon duo joining the mirrorless market, everyone is happy again.

But I don't find 88% enough for such well made camera. DPreview made an accurate review, don't det me wrong, but let's address the elephant in the room - we all hoped for better image quality. Waxy faces and curly foliage - come on Fuji, you can do better, can you?

Go to the samples and if you don't see it, just skip my comment. There are plenty of people who had issues with how XTrans captures color and fine color details, manifested in different ways. GFX uses Bayer filter array for a reason. If you don't have a problem with XTrans, then this is not your battle.

“curly foliage”?? Please don’t make such generalizations...I am obtaining very sharp, high-definition foliage in my landscape images, using the X-T3 plus stellar XF lenses, a solid tripod, and good exposure and post process technique. Perhaps if you experiment with a different image processor app (I use Affinity and Photoshop), and a good, solid tripod, you’ll get better results. Good luck and have fun!

I love my fuji however i do think its worth mentioning in the review that there’s no way to store groups of settings and quickly switch between them like a memory recall function in other systems. If you visited the Fujifilm X forum you will see lots of threads about this missing feature and as someone who likes birding and wildlife a lot of times i would miss the shots simply because there’s no time to switch each setting individually.

Well that would be tricky to implement. Recalling specific aperture, shutter, ISO, focus mode and drive mode settings is sure to confuse the photographer when all the dials still point to certain values.

This is obviously a very capable camera. Are the 56f1.2 and 16 f1.4 lenses as versatile as the Canon 85 f1.2 and the 24mm f1.4 L lenses? No, the DOF is less and they’re not weather sealed. But there’s not much in it, and you get a lot lighter kit. If you’re not a pro, can see why switching to Fuji makes sense.

The DOF is greater on APS-CWhat you mean, ist the capability to isolate a subject.

But I don't see a miss here and I don't know if you ever shot a 85mm f1.2? You might have seen images on the internet, but I can tell you that one needs experience to produce images with it that work and are not just a soup of blur with a razor thin DOF. And mostly, you will shot a lens like this stepped down and that's were I come in: a 56mm f1.2 might be less able to blurr the background in direct comparison, but that does not really matter USING the lens.and for the 24mm FOV: does it matter?

There might be situations, where you need a stop better separation both on 24mm as well as 85mm FOV yes. and if your style depends on that, then you need a larger sensor and larger lenses.but for me: I don't mind "missing" out on the upper spectrum. Instead, I am really happy about smaller lenses while having shallow enough DOF (honestly, it is often still too thin for me)

@tonyreidsma I think what I was trying to say, rather clumsily, as it turns out. That in the main only a pro is likely to be concerned with extra fine DOF you’d get from a f1.2 on a full sensor compared to the 1.2 on a the crop. The same goes for the 1.4 on the wide angle.

How often do you think a “pro” photographer use F1.2 on an F1.2 lens? Just because the maximum aperture is 1.2 doesn’t mean it’s being used the most. In fact, I rarely see an image that won the prize shot at anything wider than F2. You can hop on Flickr and browse through recommended photos, 80% of them shot with >F4.

@D_Gunman Very shallow dof is just a tool that a pro has at his/her disposal should they decide to use it. That’s why a pro might buy a 1.2 lens on a full frame, to have that option. Do amateurs really need that option?

Greetings! Regarding the statement “If you’re not a Pro, switching to Fuji makes sense”, may I respectfully disagree...A “Pro” can and does create fine images with the Fujifilm X-System (and other APS-C Systems!). It’s simply a matter of the creativity of the person behind the camera. In terms of build and image quality, the Fujifilm X-System is more than sufficient. I routinely create poster prints (20”x30”) that retain excellent Sharpness and detail. Sure, I realize that the larger the sensor, the better, but that doesn’t mean that the relatively small sensor system can’t yield “professional” Quality results! Enjoy whatever gear you use.

Well, there are some very good MFT lenses for sure, but better than Fuji? I think Fuji's lineup is pretty much on the money. Truth be told, you can make great images with either, with a bit of imagination and half-decent skills.

I agree, FF doesn't make sense for Fuji. They should focus on improving their APSC and MF lines. Give us faster AF, better video capabilities, and more lenses, particularly the the compact and cheaper f3 series. The same thing for MF, make it cheaper too.

just because there is a ultra plastic 10-20mm that you don't like doesn't mean anything in regards to a whole system...

if you try to ridicule a D500 in regards of quality or usability and point blank tell that fuji is better, you really sound like a fanboy without any sane arguments except that "my brand is better than yours!"

of course there are reasons to chose a D500 for Christs sake. in fact, there are many and they are complex because the requirements and situations of photographers can be very different.

But I guess, you invested some of your hard earned money into the fuji system and now think that that your way is superior to every body else?

In addition to long glass, better af, robust built, there's nothing more D500 has going for it? It's kind of surprising, because D500 was such a beast when it came out and received a universal praise. Two years later a mirrorless camera seems to blow it out of the water..

this review can't be considered objective because mFT is the best option. Hence the best non mFT bodies can only get as its highest grading a "Silver". Gold is reserved for the future of photography, and that has been mFT for the past decade. DPR, please adjust your rating if you wish to be considered a reputable review site. Make mFT great again or else....

It seems clear to me that m4/3, APS-C, Full Frame, Medium Format, and smart phones are the future of Digital Photography. I lament the loss of 2/3 from the market place because I was hoping for a REALLY discreet street machine in camera, rather than phone, form factor. Something like a 2/3 version of the Ricoh GR or Fuji(film?) X100x lines.

Simon Says:The Fuji X10/20/30 line has been the closest approximation to my fantasy spec, so far. My ideal camera would look something like these but with a non-retracting, very fast, fixed focal length lens and precise optical viewfinder like the Fuji, combined that with the snap focus and one hand operation of the Ricoh.

After thinking about this a little, one thing i would have liked to see them do is change the little nubs for the metering and shooting mode dials to one where the nub was on the back of the dial (facing the photographer) rather than on the front. The problem I've had is sometimes when moving the switch, I'll accidentally hit the power switch thus turning off the camera (especially when switching from spot to full matrix or something). I figure this was probably done for comfort so you can flip the dials with your pointer finger and not your thumbs. But otherwise, am happy they kept the rest of the body just about the same.

Just got a screaming good deal from a Manhattan photo store on the black XT3. It's a really dope camera! Though I am a little disappointed in the plasticy build feel. (I like the Xpro2 style better) But the specs on this camera were impossible to pass up. Plus also open box price helped!

One very rarely sees a Fuji reviewed as a landscape camera. I've seen night shots taken at 25000iso, I've seen image sequences taken at 20fps, I've seen shots of birds in flight, but a landscape taken at base iso at f8? No. One reviewer on YouTube gave his XT10 away because he hated the way Fuji rendered foliage and shades of green.I am tempted by this camera but as a landscapist I can buy the Canon 6Dii with the 24-105mm for the same price on the grey market.

I used all Fuji for my landscape. I love it. Especially I am working mostly in a rugged mountains of South East Asia, weight different is a big thing for me. Those foliage rendering is the thing in the past. Only Adobe does it.

@seanleephoto Yes I've seen some of Mumford's videos but he admits he is a Fuji X Photographer and a brand ambassador for Fujifilm in Portugal, where he is based. I would prefer impartial advice. I don't know a single independent landscape photographer that uses Fuji.

@Alistair-h Agreed the K1 is great, the problem with Pentax are the expensive lenses, often made by Tamron but at twice the cost. Also I think Pentax will be out of business in a few years, sadly. The 6Dii is the most hated camera of recent years but for those of us who know how to expose properly, don't care about video and don't need a zillion AF points it's fantastic, and the current price is unbeatable.

Greetings! I’m an “Independent” landscape and product photographer who uses the Fujifilm X-T3, some stellar, sharp Fujinon XF lenses, and a solid tripod, and my images are super-sharp and detail-rich, having received comments on the same from various professionals like art directors and web designers. So, yes, the system very much can be used for landscape photography. If interested, please check my site at “TQP”...Thanks, and enjoy whatever gear you use.

need some advice here. I am already 3 years a (happy) owner of the x-t10, but now is time to upgrade. Serious doubt to go for the t3 or the good priced t2. Video i almost don't do that...neither sports.

I've had the T2 since it was released and have not found a compelling reason to get the T3. I have handled the T3 in store and some of the minor physical changes they made are nice, but not significant improvements. The T2 is already a fine camera. I noticed a performance difference going from the T1 to T2. Although I look back at some of my favorite photos and the T1 was still a fantastic camera!

Hello, I too, shoot neither sports nor video, but upgraded from the good X-Pro2 to the awesome X-T3, and do see a difference in image quality and sharpness/detail retention, even at near base ISO (160) or 200, when comparing images. That said, the X-T2 and X-Pro2 are still very good cameras!

Well there you go, Fuji knocking it out of the park again. I'm more of a Xpro shooter, but this looks too good to let go. Well done Fuji, keep at it and keep proving to the FF remoaners that APSC is just as good.

@Iacikuss I work with APSC at pro level for portraits and weddings no problem. I find it much better to work with than FF, and thats bull about it not being good in low light. The difference is hardly noticeable.

I have both an APS-C and FF body and quite frankly, I don't think about sensor size for 90% of my photography. I just pick the camera that feels appropriate for the task (street photography: I'll use my XT2; for Landscapes, I'll use either my Nikon D750 or the Fuji XT2). The only time I reach for my D750 specifically is for astro photography because of its high ISO / low-light capabilities but beyond that, I just use whatever I think fits the need, not which ever one has the biggest sensor.

True, but if the two are the same, wouldn't the print size argument not matter as much since the full res image is essentially the same size (give or take a 1/2 MP difference depending on usable vs. actual pixel differences)?

I mean people should consider it, especially if they are remotely serious about going pro or shooting with high-end glass or certain types of photography where one format might be better than another, but I think for most (and especially beginners/hobbyists) it won't matter all that much. For pros, it might be a critical decision (I'm not a pro, just a hobbyist BTW).

Well said, Bilbo! I certainly agree. Most folks don’t need the marginally better low light/high ISO performance “advantage” of FF. When viewed online at low resolution, I find zero difference in overall image quality, and indeed, I can print sharp, detail-rich poster size (20”x30”) prints with the Fuji X-T3 and the stellar Fujinon lenses. IMHO, the allure of FF originated in marketing hype, before the quality and sensor improvements in APS-C format systems. That “issue”, like the “Made in China” concern, should be put to bed. Thanks!

ah Fuji....these film simulations are really great. Now most of these samples would not steer me away from my m4/3 Olies , although I'm really impressed that 6400 iso raw is about as good as a Canon FF . What impressed me also was the 16-55 f2.8 zoom , the 90 f2 fine but not amazing . But when you've been used to IBIS comfort , well X-t3 has none to start with , ok no big deal , but then the ois lenses ? not the 16-55 , not the 90 , none of the shorter primes ( correct me if Im wrong ), only the 18-55 and 18-135 ? Fuji what's wrong ? So have to buy Xh1 ?

I think the point is, if you have good high ISO and a fast lens, what do you need IBIS for? I don't think the average Fuji X user was screaming out for it...just the m4/3 switchers with the smaller sensor.

No OIS or IBIS can help with motion blur either, so even then, your low light pictures of people get limited by the shutter speed.

IBIS never stopped any subject, so yes, in most caes it's useless but it's the new Dynamic Range. If you can't add 6 stops, the sensor is subject to hate from trolls. I would not like to be ca cameradeveloper these days...

@jaynguNaturally IBIS can't freeze movement , this is the counter argument repeated ad nauseam , now try shooting night cityscapes no tripod with lens stopped down because of nasty lights , or inside of museums / art galleries , or cathedrals where flash is forbidden , you'll be happy to have IBIS , even if you're above 1/20 or 1/30 sec . i was happy to have IBIS for this one, among many others : https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9301240652/photos/3796774/vram926-1200str

Hi 108. First let me say that for those who want ultimate Sharpness and detail in their images, a solid tripod is required, hence the “Few OIS lenses” issue is moot anyway, since obviously one would not use it on tripod-mounted cameras. Secondly, the XF90 was the sharpest lens I’ve ever used in 40 years of photography...that is, until I used the XF80mm f/2.8 Macro! Absolutely one of, if not the, sharpest Macro out there. Thanks, and Enjoy your photography!

The Fujifilm X-T series (1 and 2) was never known suitable for high-speed /sports photography. Fujifilm changed that with the X-T3.

If I find a published comparison of auto-focus speed and accuracy of the above cameras, I will post it in time.

From specs alone, the Fujifilm has far more focus points of the phase-detect type and AF coverage area than the Olympus. Adding the fact that the X-T3 comes to the market two years later than the E-M1II, it is not surprising that the X-T3 is superior. The AF performance bar is much higher now.

IMO, if you don't do video, there is little benefit to upgrade (while a 2MP bump in resolution is nice, I can't justify the additional cost), so I think sticking with the XT2 is a good choice (I'm doing the same with mine). But on the other hand, you do have a new sensor (X-Trans IV). Not sure what exactly got changed that will benefit still photographers (haven't read into the new sensor too much).

Maybe if Fuji releases an XT30 with an X-Trans IV I'll consider that (providing it's less than $1000).

Videogimmiicks? What has you all bent outta shape.You mean it has video capabilities for videographers?

It has processing that can stand up to low end cinema cameras. That's really impressive. I mean I am not going to buy it because I think the GH5 is better but still, it's pretty damn impressive.Meanwhile, Sony wishes they could have this kind of video processing in their MILC cameras.

@Richard Butler, you are in a position where you can just pick up your phone and just call Fuji, & call Adobe and ask them why, after some six years into xtrans, we don't have kick-butt xtrans raw processing from Adobe? Even if they were more public about the current challenges, and their plans to address them, and if it is going to be more of a priority going forward...would be great to hear.

There was some mention in your review of improvements here, but not enough information, IMO.

All formats are a balance of factors (or compromise, if you're trying to be negative).

Generally it's a size/price/image quality balance. There is no 'right' answer. The larger the sensor, the greater the potential image quality (assuming you can find a fast enough lens to take advantage of it).

I find my XT2's AFC fairly competent tracking a running child if I use the PD area only. I'm surprised that the XT3 would fail doing on this subject. With 99% PD coverage, faster processor, improved algorithm and faster FPS, it should make the XT3 superior.

From an actual owner - I love this camera, not for what it isn't and wasn't designed to be, but for what it is.

Quite honestly it's going to take me time to learn everything it can do and there may be some aspects of it that I won't likely use on a daily basis. But it's nice to know I can grow into those capabilities once I understand them better.

Most importantly, I'm absolutely certain that any limitations in my photography are going to be more on my end than the camera's which is, after all, simply a tool in my hands. Anyone who can't take a good picture with this camera ( or any comparable one) should go back to finger painting the walls.

Love my xt3. However the lens lineup for xt3 is not complete yet especially at tele end. My d500 can take advantage of many affordable tele lenses available today, from nikons own 200-500/5.6 to tons of third party 100-400 and 150-600 lenses. Sigma 100-400 goes on sale for $500 sometimes. I also have tons of older Nikon choices like 300mm f4 af-d etc. Fuji’s only choice for tele is 100-400 which costs $1800, and new 200mm which costs $6k. And nobody makes affordable 3D party tele lenses for Fuji. I’d love to use this great Fuji tracking system for birds etc but my choices are very limited.

So many criticisms to the lens line from SONY and, as you say, no compact tele zooms from Fuji. Only a big and expensive 100-400, as big and heavy as the 70-400 FF of SONY. I´d like a 70-100-300 mm like the SONY or Tamron at a lower price.

I just bought a Panasonic FZ 300 with a 25-600mm F/2.8 lens, 4K video, IBIS etc. for $300 brand new in Amazon. I've done lots of video, birding, landscape an macro with it. No need to carry all my FF gear with me outdoors, rather carry more water in my backpack and bear spray of course.

It is very hard to tell any difference only looking at final output: images. What makes difference it actually user experience and extra features. All cameras nowadays are capable of delivering excellent images with minimal effort.

This camera is a great option for buyers. Usually the results are every bit as good as FF cameras, and the color output will be more pleasing and easier to work.The old a6500 has the worst rolling shutter making some video unusable and has all those over heating problems. The Fuji also is built better with some real weather resistance (we've all seen the Lens Rentals articles proving Sony weather resistance is a sham).

Another great plus, is F2.8 zooms aren't $2400 each. Ther is no Sony f2.8 zoom over 80mmm for less than $2400.

This and the d500 are by far the best APSC cameras today. Even the NX1 was significantly better than the a6500.

With the advancements with AI and software combined with improved sensor performance, APSC has a good future. APSC sensors are said to cost 1/4th of FF sensors, and also readout faster due to smaller size. They should use less energy too.

If Google can make a smartphone sensor perform significantly better, imagine what they could do with an APSC or M43 sensor.

More about gear in this article

Since publishing our full review, we've continued shooting with the Fujifilm X-T3 here and there – sometimes on assignment, and sometimes because we just like it so darn much. Our sample gallery has been updated with fresh images.

Not everybody wants or needs a full frame sensor, but that doesn't mean you have to give up pro-level performance on your camera. In this episode, Chris and Jordan compare four of the top performing APS-C and Micro Four Thirds models currently on the market: the Fujifilm X-T3, Nikon D500, Panasonic G9, and Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Latest in-depth reviews

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

The Movie Maker is a compact, motorized slider designed for phones, action cams and small mirrorless cameras. We think it's a fun little kit and a good value proposition for the cost, provided you can work around a few of its weak points.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.